It does not capture or quantify skill. You can win games with out ever having to kill a player at all in objective games (only id tdm or ffa is k/d really even important). So it is not an accurate rendition of a players skill by any means. Just would be another stat players would use to stroke their epeen and brag about, even if was hidden from the public. Players would take screen shots of photo's of it to show off to other players or friends.

Earlier in this thread I described that the GIN is applicable to ALL game modes. When you score an objective it adds to your SPM, the developer has to make sure the objective point value is weighted fairly to its importance to the game. KILLING OTHER PLAYERS IN OBJECTIVE BASED GAMES IS JUST AS IMPORTANT! The total kills doesn't determine the victor, but rather coordination between teammates in establishing map control at the right times to secure objectives does. You may have more objective oriented players (but still kill when necessary), but their SPM should be identical to players who may focus primarily on killing the entire game if the objective points are weighted correctly.

The GIN would actually be most utilized for objective games! If you have someone who is scoring objective points while also efficiently killing to position their team on the map, that is EXTREMELY valuable and their GIN score would be enormous.

Actually, the advanced algorithms go back to at least COD4: MW. I know that because I have done a lot of researching and testing.

- That's how I figured out a long time ago how the spawn system worked

- That's how I figured out a long time ago how teams are created

- That's how I figured out a long time ago that the idea of weapons being "overpowered" is purely myth

The first three points of "testing and research" have nothing to do with determining ranks of players or game impact, like this thread is based on. I am not proposing to redefine the ranking system of any CoD game, just implement new more meaningful stats.

I DEFINITELY agree with you that there should be a games completed vs. games played stat.

My only point was that while I like your desire to provide a better or more general measure of player performance (not skill because, as I said, "skill" is a subjective measure, not objective), something that accounts for a player's performance in relation to his specific circumstances would be a real improvement, not a shell game (and I don't mean that to be disrespectful) with currently available information.

You do that, then you've got stats that can truly provide an overall view of player effectiveness.

The GIN statistic would be an attempt to QUANTIFY a players SKILL and take it from the land of subjectivity (I.e. "Hes bad" or "He's good" and put it into objectivity (i.e. "He has a GIN of 65" and "He has a GIN of 600") by calculating a number! That is the whole point of why this would be useful...

Also, yes I know how to use spreadsheets...quite well, I make them everyday at work, but since this is straight multiplication a coding genius for IW could write this into the game in a couple hours...not hard and not that much work. The real predicament is how it would affect the dynamics of a lobby and if to make it visible to players in a lobby. Most people here, and myself agree that it should not be.

Just play the game for fun and go from there. Too many people take the stats in this game too serious.

I won't argue with you on this one. It's a game afterall and lets not take it so serioulsly where it is no longer fun.

name and shame borders on slander and harassment which is against the xbl tos which is why it is not a good thing to have a stat that may lead to this.

Let me correct myself a little here. I don't mean that the cheaters/DB/quitters should be actively sought out and named and shamed.

What I was trying to say is that, if we had a quit/complete ratio, it would make it easier to identify these guys when they're in the lobby. More importantly, it would discourage stat padding because the padders will know that we'll know they're not on the up and up.

I have to be telling falsehoods about a person for me to slander him; truth is always a defense against slander. Bare stats don't lie.

The GIN statistic would be an attempt to QUANTIFY a players SKILL and take it from the land of subjectivity (I.e. "Hes bad" or "He's good" and put it into objectivity (i.e. "He has a GIN of 65" and "He has a GIN of 600") by calculating a number! That is the whole point of why this would be useful...

Absolutely, stats are but attempts to quantify quality (skill). This is what I mean when I say people need to know what a stat means, and what it does not mean.

But just because no stat or a combo of stats will ever totally and accurately reflect skill, we can use them to help us gauge it. Lets use Baseball as an example. If we see a player with a 330 batting average, sufficient number of plate appearances, good On Base percentage (minimal strike outs and having a good "eye"), good slugging percentage, etc., we can fairly assume this is a very good player. We can safely say he is a skilled player.

OTHO, what the above numbers don't say is how hard this player tries. Pete Rose was known to be a tryhard (tryhard here is a good thing), no stat will ever tell you that he mowed down some catcher in an exhibition game to try to score an insignifican run.

Lets use Baseball as an example. If we see a player with a 330 batting average, sufficient number of plate appearances, good On Base percentage (minimal strike outs and having a good "eye"), good slugging percentage, etc., we can fairly assume this is a very good player. We can safely say he is a skilled player.

Baseball is exactly the example I was thinking of Yppecaye! It was part of the inspiration for this statistic. Part of the reason Baseball has so many oddball stats is to try and approximate a players skill, and that was my intended idea here. I understand it is IMPOSSIBLE to EXACTLY correlate skill to a number, but it will be a decent approximation, much like Batting Ave. OBP, slugging pct%.

A bit off topic but if gamers approached their games more like atheletes did theirs, we'd get less quitting, cheating, poor sportsmanship. Everything I learned in Little League can help gamers to be better sportsman. By how poorly some gamers behave themselves, makes me wonder whether if some of these players ever played any sports.

Would those principles help? Not really since this is not real life and no bearing on real life or what people do outside of the game at all.

That is you not everyone has your ethics or standards and never will and nothing can ever be done about that either. Expecting someone to play by your standards is pretty silly since you really have no say in how they play at all if you are not footing the entire cost for them to play. People are not going to suddenly care they are making you upset and your not having the fun in the way you want by playing how you think they should ever.

Again I will repeat CoD is not a sport it is a video game. Not life and death, not reality. A means of entertainment and that is all. It is not refereed by anyone so there is no rules of sportsmanship within the game that anyone has to abide to ever other than no cheating/hacking/modding/glitching. Beyond that there are no special rules of how they HAVE to play the game.

Stop taking the game so serious as if every win or mach is a matter of pride or life and death and a mark against who you are as a person if you don't do your best for it is not. Not everyone is or ever will be a good sport at playing video games nor can it be forced upon them either by anyone not even the devs. Nor will they ever care if how they play and what they do affects you in any way either for they don't have too. For that is part of life and having freedom of choice. That not everyone has to be nice or fair or play in any set standard way just to fit in with some other group that wants to play that way.

NOTHING will ever change it. For not everyone will ever take the game serious no matter what is said or done by the devs or anyone else ever.